If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Where is the ART in Zaraki's Training?

As the title suggests- I am wondering Where is the ART in Zakarai's Training?

the point of this training was to teach him the Art of killing.
Unohana is killing him and reviving him until he reaches his unsealed former state that he had when he was a kid and could have killed her.

Returning to a state of unbridled power is not ART. ART implies technique, impression, feeling, skill all wrapped up and displayed.

that being said, the final strike he made in this chapter against Unohana, suggests he has made the return to his former self, strong, but certainly not Artistic.

I now find myself wondering, if Unohana is going to continue the training and begin to show him some technique. or how to speak with his zanpaktou, or anything closely resembling skill/art.

Re: Where is the ART in Zakarai's Training?

Well, as we saw with unohana her entire point was to restore the sheer raw power that made kid zaraki a threat to unohana in the past. As far as we have seen she has succeeded in pushing zaraki only as far as she personally has the strength to do so.

I see your point on zaraki being taught actual swordsmanship however that depends on two things:

1.- Unohana actually surviving zaraki's training
2.- The willingness of either party to go through with that.

Plotwise I would argue unohana will survive. Her shikai and bankai have yet to be explained along with the particular background story that made her go form an apathetic murderer swordswoman to the nicest doctor who will ever kick your ass. I guess kubo could go the flashback route in regards to her powers though.

As for the willingness of either party, I have no clue. On one hand kenpachi can already use her one day worth of actual kendo training to a great effect. For another thing it does seem as if fighting unohana as he has done actually helped improved his swordsmanship. That said, does kenpachi actually even want to learn kendo? he already defeated his ideal, the person he worshiped. I don't think unohana would have trouble teaching him the sword however zaraki wanting that is unlikely.

Re: Where is the ART in Zakarai's Training?

From my perspective, I think that Zaraki is a natural genius in sword fighting. A genius that can master sword arts easily simply by observing the techniques once. What Unohana doing is to restore Zaraki back to that state. And when Zaraki is restored to his original self, he'll also conveniently mastered the sword arts by experiencing it directly in his battle with Unohana.

Re: Where is the ART in Zakarai's Training?

Originally Posted by Sanadan

Art is impossible to completely define. For a ruthless killer this could be art.

I disagree- Also there is a difference between a craft or skill and art.

Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities; this article focuses primarily on the visual arts, which includes the creation of images or objects in fields including painting, sculpture, printmaking, photography, and other visual media. Architecture is often included as one of the visual arts; however, like the decorative arts, it involves the creation of objects where the practical considerations of use are essential—in a way that they are usually not for a painting, for example. Music, theatre, film, dance, and other performing arts, as well as literature, and other media such as interactive media are included in a broader definition of art or the arts.[1] Until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences, but in modern usage the fine arts, where aesthetic considerations are paramount, are distinguished from acquired skills in general, and the decorative or applied arts.

Art has been characterized in terms of mimesis, expression, communication of emotion, or other values. During the Romantic period, art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[2] Though the definition of what constitutes art is disputed[3][4][5] and has changed over time, general descriptions mention an idea of human agency[6] and creation through imaginative or technical skill.[7]

The nature of art, and related concepts such as creativity and interpretation, are explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.[8]

By a broad definition of art,[7] artistic works have existed for almost as long as humankind: from early pre-historic art to contemporary art; however, some theories restrict the concept to modern Western societies.[9] The first and broadest sense of art is the one that has remained closest to the older Latin meaning, which roughly translates to "skill" or "craft." A few examples where this meaning proves very broad include artifact, artificial, artifice, medical arts, and military arts. However, there are many other colloquial uses of the word, all with some relation to its etymology.

In medieval philosophy, John Chrysostom held that "the name of art should be applied to those only which contribute towards and produce necessaries and mainstays of life." Thomas Aquinas, when treating the adornment of women, gives an ethical justification as to why: "In the case of an art directed to the production of goods which men cannot use without sin, it follows that the workmen sin in making such things, as directly affording others an occasion of sin; for instance, if a man were to make idols or anything pertaining to idolatrous worship. But in the case of an art the products of which may be employed by man either for a good or for an evil use, such as swords, arrows, and the like, the practice of such an art is not sinful. These alone should be called arts."[10] Aquinas held that art is nothing else than "the right reason about certain works to be made," and that it is commendable, not for the will with which a craftman does a work, "but for the quality of the work. Art, therefore, properly speaking, is an operative habit." Aristotle and Aquinas distinguish it from the related habit of prudence.[11]

The second and more recent sense of the word art is as an abbreviation for creative art or fine art and emerged in the early 17th century.[12] Fine art means that a skill is being used to express the artist's creativity, or to engage the audience's aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the finer things.

The word art can refer to several things: a study of creative skill, a process of using the creative skill, a product of the creative skill, or the audience's experience with the creative skill. The creative arts (art as discipline) are a collection of disciplines that produce artworks (art as objects) that are compelled by a personal drive (art as activity) and convey a message, mood, or symbolism for the viewer to interpret (art as experience). Art is something that stimulates an individual's thoughts, emotions, beliefs, or ideas through the senses. Artworks can be explicitly made for this purpose or interpreted on the basis of images or objects. Although the application of scientific knowledge to derive a new scientific theory involves skill and results in the "creation" of something new, this represents science only and is not categorized as art.

Often, if the skill is being used in a common or practical way, people will consider it a craft instead of art. Likewise, if the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial way, it may be considered commercial art instead of fine art. On the other hand, crafts and design are sometimes considered applied art. Some art followers have argued that the difference between fine art and applied art has more to do with value judgments made about the art than any clear definitional difference.[13] However, even fine art often has goals beyond pure creativity and self-expression. The purpose of works of art may be to communicate ideas, such as in politically, spiritually, or philosophically motivated art; to create a sense of beauty (see aesthetics); to explore the nature of perception; for pleasure; or to generate strong emotions. The purpose may also be seemingly nonexistent.

The nature of art has been described by philosopher Richard Wollheim as "one of the most elusive of the traditional problems of human culture".[14] Art has been defined as a vehicle for the expression or communication of emotions and ideas, a means for exploring and appreciating formal elements for their own sake, and as mimesis or representation. Art as mimesis has deep roots in the philosophy of Aristotle.[15] Goethe defined art as an other resp. a second nature, according to his ideal of a style founded on the basic fundaments of insight and on the innermost character of things.[16] Leo Tolstoy identified art as a use of indirect means to communicate from one person to another.[15] Benedetto Croce and R.G. Collingwood advanced the idealist view that art expresses emotions, and that the work of art therefore essentially exists in the mind of the creator.[17][18] The theory of art as form has its roots in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and was developed in the early twentieth century by Roger Fry and Clive Bell. More recently, thinkers influenced by Martin Heidegger have interpreted art as the means by which a community develops for itself a medium for self-expression and interpretation.[19] George Dickie has offered an institutional theory of art that defines a work of art as any artifact upon which a qualified person or persons acting on behalf of the social institution commonly referred to as "the art world" has conferred "the status of candidate for appreciation".[20]

Sculptures, cave paintings, rock paintings and petroglyphs from the Upper Paleolithic dating to roughly 40,000 years ago have been found, but the precise meaning of such art is often disputed because so little is known about the cultures that produced them. The oldest art objects in the world—a series of tiny, drilled snail shells about 75,000 years old—were discovered in a South African cave.[21] Containers that may have been used to hold paints have been found dating as far back as 100,000 years.[22]

Many great traditions in art have a foundation in the art of one of the great ancient civilizations: Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, India, China, Ancient Greece, Rome, as well as Inca, Maya, and Olmec. Each of these centers of early civilization developed a unique and characteristic style in its art. Because of the size and duration of these civilizations, more of their art works have survived and more of their influence has been transmitted to other cultures and later times. Some also have provided the first records of how artists worked. For example, this period of Greek art saw a veneration of the human physical form and the development of equivalent skills to show musculature, poise, beauty, and anatomically correct proportions.

In Byzantine and Medieval art of the Western Middle Ages, much art focused on the expression of Biblical and religious truths, and used styles that showed the higher glory of a heavenly world, such as the use of gold in the background of paintings, or glass in mosaics or windows, which also presented figures in idealized, patterned (flat) forms. Nevertheless a classical realist tradition persisted in small Byzantine works, and realism steadily grew in the art of Catholic Europe.

Renaissance art had a greatly increased emphasis on the realistic depiction of the material world, and the place of humans in it, reflected in the corporeality of the human body, and development of a systematic method of graphical perspective to depict recession in a three-dimensional picture space.

In the east, Islamic art's rejection of iconography led to emphasis on geometric patterns, calligraphy, and architecture. Further east, religion dominated artistic styles and forms too. India and Tibet saw emphasis on painted sculptures and dance, while religious painting borrowed many conventions from sculpture and tended to bright contrasting colors with emphasis on outlines. China saw the flourishing of many art forms: jade carving, bronzework, pottery (including the stunning terracotta army of Emperor Qin), poetry, calligraphy, music, painting, drama, fiction, etc. Chinese styles vary greatly from era to era and each one is traditionally named after the ruling dynasty. So, for example, Tang Dynasty paintings are monochromatic and sparse, emphasizing idealized landscapes, but Ming Dynasty paintings are busy and colorful, and focus on telling stories via setting and composition. Japan names its styles after imperial dynasties too, and also saw much interplay between the styles of calligraphy and painting. Woodblock printing became important in Japan after the 17th century.

The western Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century saw artistic depictions of physical and rational certainties of the clockwork universe, as well as politically revolutionary visions of a post-monarchist world, such as Blake's portrayal of Newton as a divine geometer, or David's propagandistic paintings. This led to Romantic rejections of this in favor of pictures of the emotional side and individuality of humans, exemplified in the novels of Goethe. The late 19th century then saw a host of artistic movements, such as academic art, Symbolism, impressionism and fauvism among others.

The history of twentieth century art is a narrative of endless possibilities and the search for new standards, each being torn down in succession by the next. Thus the parameters of Impressionism, Expressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Surrealism, etc. cannot be maintained very much beyond the time of their invention. Increasing global interaction during this time saw an equivalent influence of other cultures into Western art, such as Pablo Picasso being influenced by African sculpture. Japanese woodblock prints (which had themselves been influenced by Western Renaissance draftsmanship) had an immense influence on Impressionism and subsequent development. Later, African sculptures were taken up by Picasso and to some extent by Matisse. Similarly, the west has had huge impacts on Eastern art in the 19th and 20th centuries, with originally western ideas like Communism and Post-Modernism exerting a powerful influence on artistic styles.

Modernism, the idealistic search for truth, gave way in the latter half of the 20th century to a realization of its unattainability. Theodor W. Adorno said in 1970, "It is now taken for granted that nothing which concerns art can be taken for granted any more: neither art itself, nor art in relationship to the whole, nor even the right of art to exist."[24] Relativism was accepted as an unavoidable truth, which led to the period of contemporary art and postmodern criticism, where cultures of the world and of history are seen as changing forms, which can be appreciated and drawn from only with irony. Furthermore the separation of cultures is increasingly blurred and some argue it is now more appropriate to think in terms of a global culture, rather than regional cultures.

The creative arts are often divided into more specific categories, each related to its technique, or medium, such as decorative arts, plastic arts, performing arts, or literature. Unlike scientific fields, art is one of the few subjects that are academically organized according to technique [1][dead link]. An artistic medium is the substance or material the artistic work is made from, and may also refer to the technique used. For example, paint is a medium used in painting, and paper is a medium used in drawing.

An art form is the specific shape, or quality an artistic expression takes. The media used often influence the form. For example, the form of a sculpture must exist in space in three dimensions, and respond to gravity. The constraints and limitations of a particular medium are thus called its formal qualities. To give another example, the formal qualities of painting are the canvas texture, color, and brush texture. The formal qualities of video games are non-linearity, interactivity and virtual presence. The form of a particular work of art is determined by the formal qualities of the media, and is not related to the intentions of the artist or the reactions of the audience in any way whatsoever as these properties are related to content rather than form.[25]

A genre is a set of conventions and styles within a particular medium. For instance, well recognized genres in film are western, horror and romantic comedy. Genres in music include death metal and trip hop. Genres in painting include still life and pastoral landscape. A particular work of art may bend or combine genres but each genre has a recognizable group of conventions, clichés and tropes. (One note: the word genre has a second older meaning within painting; genre painting was a phrase used in the 17th to 19th centuries to refer specifically to paintings of scenes of everyday life and is still used in this way.)

The style of an artwork, artist, or movement is the distinctive method and form followed by the respective art. Any loose brushy, dripped or poured abstract painting is called expressionistic. Often a style is linked with a particular historical period, set of ideas, and particular artistic movement. So Jackson Pollock is called an Abstract Expressionist.

A particular style may have specific cultural meanings. For example, Roy Lichtenstein—a painter associated with the American Pop art movement of the 1960s—was not a pointillist, despite his use of dots. Lichtenstein used evenly spaced Ben-Day dots (the type used to reproduce color in comic strips) as a style to question the "high" art of painting with the "low" art of comics, thus commenting on class distinctions in culture. Pointillism, a technique in late Impressionism (1880s) developed especially by the artist Georges Seurat, employs dots to create variation in color and depth in an attempt to approximate the way people really see color. Both artists use dots, but the particular style and technique relate to the artistic movement adopted by each artist.

These are all ways of beginning to define a work of art, to narrow it down. "Imagine you are an art critic whose mission is to compare the meanings you find in a wide range of individual artworks. How would you proceed with your task? One way to begin is to examine the materials each artist selected in making an object, image video, or event. The decision to cast a sculpture in bronze, for instance, inevitably effects its meaning; the work becomes something different from how it might be if it had been cast in gold or plastic or chocolate, even if everything else about the artwork remains the same. Next, you might examine how the materials in each artwork have become an arrangement of shapes, colors, textures, and lines. These, in turn, are organized into various patterns and compositional structures. In your interpretation, you would comment on how salient features of the form contribute to the overall meaning of the finished artwork. [But in the end] the meaning of most artworks... is not exhausted by a discussion of materials, techniques, and form. Most interpretations also include a discussion of the ideas and feelings the artwork engenders."[27]

Skill and craft
Art can connote a sense of trained ability or mastery of a medium. Art can also simply refer to the developed and efficient use of a language to convey meaning with immediacy and or depth. Art is an act of expressing feelings, thoughts, and observations.[28] There is an understanding that is reached with the material as a result of handling it, which facilitates one's thought processes. A common view is that the epithet "art", particular in its elevated sense, requires a certain level of creative expertise by the artist, whether this be a demonstration of technical ability, an originality in stylistic approach, or a combination of these two. Traditionally skill of execution was viewed as a quality inseparable from art and thus necessary for its success; for Leonardo da Vinci, art, neither more nor less than his other endeavors, was a manifestation of skill. Rembrandt's work, now praised for its ephemeral virtues, was most admired by his contemporaries for its virtuosity. At the turn of the 20th century, the adroit performances of John Singer Sargent were alternately admired and viewed with skepticism for their manual fluency, yet at nearly the same time the artist who would become the era's most recognized and peripatetic iconoclast, Pablo Picasso, was completing a traditional academic training at which he excelled.

A common contemporary criticism of some modern art occurs along the lines of objecting to the apparent lack of skill or ability required in the production of the artistic object. In conceptual art, Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" is among the first examples of pieces wherein the artist used found objects ("ready-made") and exercised no traditionally recognised set of skills. Tracey Emin's My Bed, or Damien Hirst's The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living follow this example and also manipulate the mass media. Emin slept (and engaged in other activities) in her bed before placing the result in a gallery as work of art. Hirst came up with the conceptual design for the artwork but has left most of the eventual creation of many works to employed artisans. Hirst's celebrity is founded entirely on his ability to produce shocking concepts. The actual production in many conceptual and contemporary works of art is a matter of assembly of found objects. However there are many modernist and contemporary artists who continue to excel in the skills of drawing and painting and in creating hands-on works of art.

Somewhat in relation to the above, the word art is also used to apply judgments of value, as in such expressions as "that meal was a work of art" (the cook is an artist), or "the art of deception", (the highly attained level of skill of the deceiver is praised). It is this use of the word as a measure of high quality and high value that gives the term its flavor of subjectivity.

Making judgments of value requires a basis for criticism. At the simplest level, a way to determine whether the impact of the object on the senses meets the criteria to be considered art is whether it is perceived to be attractive or repulsive. Though perception is always colored by experience, and is necessarily subjective, it is commonly understood that what is not somehow aesthetically satisfying cannot be art. However, "good" art is not always or even regularly aesthetically appealing to a majority of viewers. In other words, an artist's prime motivation need not be the pursuit of the aesthetic. Also, art often depicts terrible images made for social, moral, or thought-provoking reasons. For example, Francisco Goya's painting depicting the Spanish shootings of 3rd of May 1808 is a graphic depiction of a firing squad executing several pleading civilians. Yet at the same time, the horrific imagery demonstrates Goya's keen artistic ability in composition and execution and produces fitting social and political outrage. Thus, the debate continues as to what mode of aesthetic satisfaction, if any, is required to define 'art'.

The assumption of new values or the rebellion against accepted notions of what is aesthetically superior need not occur concurrently with a complete abandonment of the pursuit of what is aesthetically appealing. Indeed, the reverse is often true, that the revision of what is popularly conceived of as being aesthetically appealing allows for a re-invigoration of aesthetic sensibility, and a new appreciation for the standards of art itself. Countless schools have proposed their own ways to define quality, yet they all seem to agree in at least one point: once their aesthetic choices are accepted, the value of the work of art is determined by its capacity to transcend the limits of its chosen medium to strike some universal chord by the rarity of the skill of the artist or in its accurate reflection in what is termed the zeitgeist.

Art is often intended to appeal to and connect with human emotion. It can arouse aesthetic or moral feelings, and can be understood as a way of communicating these feelings. Artists express something so that their audience is aroused to some extent, but they do not have to do so consciously. Art may be considered an exploration of the human condition; that is, what it is to be human.[29]

Well, as we saw with unohana her entire point was to restore the sheer raw power that made kid zaraki a threat to unohana in the past. As far as we have seen she has succeeded in pushing zaraki only as far as she personally has the strength to do so.

I see your point on zaraki being taught actual swordsmanship however that depends on two things:

1.- Unohana actually surviving zaraki's training
2.- The willingness of either party to go through with that.

Plotwise I would argue unohana will survive. Her shikai and bankai have yet to be explained along with the particular background story that made her go form an apathetic murderer swordswoman to the nicest doctor who will ever kick your ass. I guess kubo could go the flashback route in regards to her powers though.

As for the willingness of either party, I have no clue. On one hand kenpachi can already use her one day worth of actual kendo training to a great effect. For another thing it does seem as if fighting unohana as he has done actually helped improved his swordsmanship. That said, does kenpachi actually even want to learn kendo? he already defeated his ideal, the person he worshiped. I don't think unohana would have trouble teaching him the sword however zaraki wanting that is unlikely.

ok but they said they were going to teach him the ART of killing.
now- to me-- it seems. ... that only Unohana knows about zakari's past being a total beast and then shackling himself mentally whereas every one else just saw him as very powerful. to the New CC, who told the Central 46 that he wanted to have zakari taught the art of killing this to me implies not just an increase of effectiveness but actually teaching something beyond his natural ability.

From my perspective, I think that Zaraki is a natural genius in sword fighting. A genius that can master sword arts easily simply by observing the techniques once. What Unohana doing is to restore Zaraki back to that state. And when Zaraki is restored to his original self, he'll also conveniently mastered the sword arts by experiencing it directly in his battle with Unohana.

you do have a good point there- that the very battle with Unohana itself is teaching him. like every time she kills him with a cool move or something he learns it.
Thats kinda true, but also means that only someone who is going to be revived a thousand times could ever learn the art of killing, and that isnt true, because Unohana had to learn right?

Re: Where is the ART in Zakarai's Training?

Dude i didn't need the wiki page pointed at me. Point is what some percieve as art is crap inothers eyes, it's mainly in the eyes of the beholder that the value of art is set. Seing two beasts go at it and fight could be a beautiful thing for a person such as Zaraki or Unohana whom consider the battle to be the test of life, willingly giving up their own to be a part of it, even more if they have a chance to actually lose this battle.
You can't set art in stone, your wiki article doesn't say you can either.

Quote:

Most interpretations also include a discussion of the ideas and feelings the artwork engenders.

Quoted from the article you quoted. Or as Deidara would say "art is a bang!"

Re: Where is the ART in Zakarai's Training?

Originally Posted by River_Capulet

From my perspective, I think that Zaraki is a natural genius in sword fighting. A genius that can master sword arts easily simply by observing the techniques once. What Unohana doing is to restore Zaraki back to that state. And when Zaraki is restored to his original self, he'll also conveniently mastered the sword arts by experiencing it directly in his battle with Unohana.

This was my impression as well, I thought he might be suppressing his natural talent in his subconscious, perhaps this is why Kenpachi was strongly opposed to learning kendo in the first place. I doubt Unohana will teach him kendo after Kenpachi defeats her, at least this is not something Shunsui expects. Kenpachi doesn't know as many techniques as Unohana, he probably never will but it seems he is talented enough to outplay Unohana with what he has. His reiatsu most likely plays an important role too, you kinda need to support your talent with reiatsu, otherwise it becomes pretty useless.

Re: Where is the ART in Zakarai's Training?

Originally Posted by Sanadan

Dude i didn't need the wiki page pointed at me. Point is what some percieve as art is crap inothers eyes, it's mainly in the eyes of the beholder that the value of art is set. Seing two beasts go at it and fight could be a beautiful thing for a person such as Zaraki or Unohana whom consider the battle to be the test of life, willingly giving up their own to be a part of it, even more if they have a chance to actually lose this battle.
You can't set art in stone, your wiki article doesn't say you can either.

Quoted from the article you quoted. Or as Deidara would say "art is a bang!"

well I posted the wiki for 2 reasons.
1 because it defines art. lol
2. general knowledge and set up for my art vs craft or skill point.

im not trying to say art is set in stone, but his talent as a killer, that is strong doesnt suggest art to me. it suggests craft or skill.
I dont know, I guess if he is that lethal, then it could be art, but he was lethal before the quincy showed up, was he less artsy then:?

Re: Where is the ART in Zakarai's Training?

Yes. Pushing himself to the limit, letting all go and fleeting between life and death for the chance of self fulfillment, unohana sacrificing her life for the benefit of him being all he can, this episode can easily be romanticised and what he becomes can be defined as art, I'd said I would require that he becomes something new for it to be and I am not the one to appreciate it but there can be an art to this. It appeals more to emotion then anything though as I see it.

I claimed it was impossible to completely define, some parts are just too personal. An overview how ever is possible.

Re: Where is the ART in Zakarai's Training?

Originally Posted by Sanadan

Yes. Pushing himself to the limit, letting all go and fleeting between life and death for the chance of self fulfillment, unohana sacrificing her life for the benefit of him being all he can, this episode can easily be romanticised and what he becomes can be defined as art, I'd said I would require that he becomes something new for it to be and I am not the one to appreciate it but there can be an art to this. It appeals more to emotion then anything though as I see it.

I claimed it was impossible to completely define, some parts are just too personal. An overview how ever is possible.

ya know- your post reminds me of toshiro taichou , a very measured response and quite accurate- in fact while reading it, I was hearing his anime voice lol-

Re: Where is the ART in Zaraki's Training?

Quote:

ok but they said they were going to teach him the ART of killing.
now- to me-- it seems. ... that only Unohana knows about zakari's past being a total beast and then shackling himself mentally whereas every one else just saw him as very powerful. to the New CC, who told the Central 46 that he wanted to have zakari taught the art of killing this to me implies not just an increase of effectiveness but actually teaching something beyond his natural ability.

Well, then it comes down to two things:

1.- Shunsui lucked out in regards to just happening to choose the person who knew zaraki's secret.
2.- Shunsui somehow knew or suspected about this. Perhaps unohana mentioned it at some point.

Anyways, we also have to consider that shunsui for starters knew that zaraki was not quite fighting to his full potential although it is really hard to tell if he actually understood this to its full extent. It is entirely possible he did not mean for unohana to actually just sit and teach him though. He actually knows that the situation is likely to cost either of them their lives. If he actually meant for unohana to just teach zaraki kendo then there really is no reason for any of them to die. Then again if shunsui was unaware of this he must have known that at the very least the teaching part of the situation was going to be done by fighting. Maybe his expectation was that zaraki would learn actual kendo by fighting unohana. Or perhaps he suspected zaraki was suppressing himself and thought unohana was the best candidate to deal with this. I mean, it is entirely possible he knew it was kenpachi who gave her that wound and centuries ago and thought it would be impossible for the current kenpachi to even mildly scratch her.

Anyways, even if shunsui actually meant for unohana to literally teach kendo then the situation would be that unohana simply prioritized unleashing his true raw power over teaching her actual orders. In this particular case it would simply be more effective for zaraki to reach his true potential than wasting time learning kendo first.

Re: Where is the ART in Zaraki's Training?

1.- Shunsui lucked out in regards to just happening to choose the person who knew zaraki's secret.
2.- Shunsui somehow knew or suspected about this. Perhaps unohana mentioned it at some point.

Anyways, even if shunsui actually meant for unohana to literally teach kendo then the situation would be that unohana simply prioritized unleashing his true raw power over teaching her actual orders. In this particular case it would simply be more effective for zaraki to reach his true potential than wasting time learning kendo first.

There are actually too many scenarios here....

You bring up a point that really gets to the core of the issue- if he ment for her to literally teach him- kendo, or some other thing that could be referred to as the "art" of killing. to me I thought it meant more a finesse of style, not just his strength hacking with one arm.

Re: Where is the ART in Zaraki's Training?

Originally Posted by DarkBankai

You bring up a point that really gets to the core of the issue- if he ment for her to literally teach him- kendo, or some other thing that could be referred to as the "art" of killing. to me I thought it meant more a finesse of style, not just his strength hacking with one arm.

yeah i thought he'd be learning new sword techniques like the two handed one not getting a power boost for his already recycled fighting style. you can only hack and slash so much before it gets old. lets focus less on the ''killing'' aspect and more on the ''teaching'' cause honestly as bad ass as kenpachi is i'd like to see him doing sometihing new, just so he can prove he can do it. i dont care if he goes back to his hack and slash ways but one fight where he uses technique and skill over power would be nice too see

Re: Where is the ART in Zaraki's Training?

Shunsui did admit that he was being sly in saying Unohana was to "teach Zaraki the art of killing". It could well have simply been careful wording to gain the compliance of Central 46 who, although it isn't technically their job to govern such affairs as training the Captains, could probably impose sanctions if necessary. It could also have been that he didn't know the circumstances of Zaraki's power and thought learning proper technique was the only way he could grow. Only Unohana has ever witnessed his true strength. To anyone else, including the readers, it always looked like Zaraki was always at full power and had only to learn how to properly utilise it. She was the only one who knew about these subconscious shackles and how to break them. So it may have been Shunsui's intention that Unohana teach Zaraki the art of killing, but she knew better. But anyway, there's still the possibility that breaking the shackles was only the first stage of training, and that Unohana will go on to teach him proper skill and actual technique.

Re: Where is the ART in Zaraki's Training?

1.- Shunsui lucked out in regards to just happening to choose the person who knew zaraki's secret.
2.- Shunsui somehow knew or suspected about this. Perhaps unohana mentioned it at some point.

Anyways, we also have to consider that shunsui for starters knew that zaraki was not quite fighting to his full potential although it is really hard to tell if he actually understood this to its full extent. It is entirely possible he did not mean for unohana to actually just sit and teach him though. He actually knows that the situation is likely to cost either of them their lives. If he actually meant for unohana to just teach zaraki kendo then there really is no reason for any of them to die. Then again if shunsui was unaware of this he must have known that at the very least the teaching part of the situation was going to be done by fighting. Maybe his expectation was that zaraki would learn actual kendo by fighting unohana. Or perhaps he suspected zaraki was suppressing himself and thought unohana was the best candidate to deal with this. I mean, it is entirely possible he knew it was kenpachi who gave her that wound and centuries ago and thought it would be impossible for the current kenpachi to even mildly scratch her.

Anyways, even if shunsui actually meant for unohana to literally teach kendo then the situation would be that unohana simply prioritized unleashing his true raw power over teaching her actual orders. In this particular case it would simply be more effective for zaraki to reach his true potential than wasting time learning kendo first.

There are actually too many scenarios here....

This brings us back to Yamamoto's statement about Shunsui being talented at seeing the true character of people he met. Base on that statement, I don't think that Shunsui simply chooses Unohana to do the training randomly. He has been at the G13 for a long time, it is not out of imagination if he has found out (or suspect) the relationship between Zaraki and Unohana.